Morality of bestiality (Was: End bestiality on Fchan!)

Pages:1 41 81 121 161 201 241 281 321 361 401 441 481 521 561 601 641 681 721 761 801 841 881 921 961 1001
Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 29 Apr 2006: 20:58

You either aren't reading my posts, or aren't listening, or you think it's funny watching me squirm.  I've explained why legal issues matter, complete with an example, twice.  You can't separate entwined matters into biniaries when both are being adressed.  YOU decided law didn't matter, and then, apparently whenever you get to that part of my post, you skip past what I say and act as if that makes you have a point.

I make points as to why it's wrong, and you say "Those points don't matter", and then you repeat "Why is it wrong?"  Jesus, I haven't encountered someone this thick since I was seventeen, and it was fricken ME!

Anyhow, that was all a big, stupid waste of energy.  Does anyone want to refute anything I've actually posted or, you know, add something other than repeated rhetorical questions, because a small, retarded part of me is still curious as to what the other side has to say.

Janglur at 29 Apr 2006: 21:10

1)  Definitions were given.  Nothing more.
2)  Assuming true, your own definition is also invalid on the basis of personal view.
3)  Philosophy and existance are irrelevent.  The subject is the morality of bestiality.  Consent is displayed through acquiescence.  Informed and intelligent decision is displayed by decisional preference and experience-based abjectional preference.
4)  It is necessary to prove it is damaging because if it is not in some manner damaging, it does not harm them, and thus is not immoral.  Only ethical or religious morality can be argued afterwards.
5)  Selective ignorance does not enforce your stance.
"AntiB:  It is socially/mentally damaging to underage humans to engage in sexual behavior.
ProB:  Underage humans are not animals.  Underage humans are harmed by social stigmas, ethical rejection and ostracization, and conflicting taught knowledge.  Animals lack social structures of this nature and cannot be mentally anguished or emotionally damaged, as animals do not ostracize or persecute for such acts.  Animals lack complex ethical structures."

Janglur at 29 Apr 2006: 21:28

I have stated with legality is not intrinsic with morality.  You have failed to refute this point.

Insults do not serve to improve your position.  It is a clear admission of anger, loss of rational thought, and attempt to antagonize your opponent into the same.  It implies forfeiture.

Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 29 Apr 2006: 22:10

Yes yes yes, you're very mature.  You win a toaster. Well done.

Juberu#3LrT5NRVks at 29 Apr 2006: 22:27

To reiterate: You keep begging the question of whether what animals do is consent. That's exactly what's under debate. You are assuming the topic under debate to be true in order to make an argument about it

It's a sign of poor debating, sure, but not forfeiture.

Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 29 Apr 2006: 22:38


In my defense, he does keep ignoring every point I make as "irrelevant". My fault for taking him seriously though I’m afraid. I think the point where he played the playwright was where annoyance became anger. He put words in the mouth of the opposition in order to make them look bad, and inserted his own voice as the voice of reason. It's like arguing with a magic eight ball. No matter what I say, there are only so many responces I can get. >.<

at 29 Apr 2006: 22:40

The race to whoever can make the best comback after the next guy's post wins. Aint a discussion if people cant accept others ideas or soemthing.

An animal is real, sucking on Fido's dick is much diffrent than looking and masterbating at two furries (who will never exist and are just fantasies or whatever) fuck.

Janglur at 29 Apr 2006: 22:56

And skinning an animal, cutting it's head off, starving it, or otherwise harming it is completely different from subjecting it to sexual gratification.

As for the debate at hand, i'm about to turn in for the night.  I'd say the debate has come to a close without a conclusion.  Just as it began.

Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 29 Apr 2006: 23:11


I don’t know... I think I’ve gotten a pretty clear look into the thought processes of, erm, Zoos.  It’s been agonizingly educational.

Fair and /b/alanced at 29 Apr 2006: 23:41


I'm sorry but as Psychology Major i have to address this by principle.

>>I was abused as a child.  I've survived it.  Bestiality does not bother me in the least.  My first sexual experince ever was with a horse, and if you wish to get technical, I've had more sex with animals than humans.

Isn't it entirely possible that you have sex with animals because you were abused as a child? Perhaps as you were progressing through you're socializing stage, and learning from your elders, you were abused by said elder, and now foster a fear of humans and sex with them. So instead of fighting your inate fear of humanity, you turn towards animals, and attempt to appease your instinctual habit of procreation with an animal, one who cannot hurt your feelings, or abuse you sexually, due to the fact that they DO NOT WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH YOU, NOR ARE THEY ABLE TO WITHOUT YOU GUIDING THEM.

Thank You for your time

at 29 Apr 2006: 23:44

If you were to ask a human if they wanted to have sex, and they said yes, and you just sat there wouldn't they eventually start making their moves on you?

If you were to ask an animal if they wanted to have sex, they could not actually answer, and if you just said there, they'll probably just leave or something.

at 30 Apr 2006: 00:31

It is wrong to do these things because lets take the situation, a human having sex with a non-human, and transpose it. A lion will not have sex with a tiger unless you totally force it to, and i'm pretty sure that lions and tigers are more closely related than humans and horses, that is why it's immoral.

Ban Janglur, goodnight

at 30 Apr 2006: 00:38

Wrong. the reason they don't do it in the wild is their territories don't have enough of an overlap. Tigons and ligers happen in captivity where the species are kept together, but nobody forces them to mate. They are also not the only two species that can have hybrid offspring, either. While most species can't mate for genetic reasons, some species are separated only by distance, by the function of their organs, or the timing of their reproductive cycle... If these species are kept together long enough, they will breed. It has nothing to do with force!

Get a good night's sleep, then actually study some biology before you make such an incorrect statement, please!

Samus at 30 Apr 2006: 00:55

Wrong, and wrong again.

They do happen in the wild.  www.google.com  Ligers

at 30 Apr 2006: 01:12

They do, but it's rare enough to not deserve mention. What do you want, a trophy? And wow, you can google ligers. Silly me for wasting my time and money majoring in biology in college...

semicolonthree at 30 Apr 2006: 01:17

I think most of you are missing the point...
The content on Fchan is illustrated; the scenes and character are not real, no real people (or animals) were involved in the act.  Therefore, despite what happens in these depictions, nobody is hurt (including any animals).  So where's the issue?  If you are on Fchan, you are not in a position to speak of morality; it's freaking PORN!  I could say I find homosexuality immoral, does that mean we should remove any depictions of such? No!  The Mods have done a good job at trying to sort content into specific categories so all of would stop complaining about "immoral content".

at 30 Apr 2006: 01:33


Ok, so maybe a lion and tiger were a bad example, both being of the  same genus Panthera (as they can interbreed). But two animals of different Genuses(genii?) cannot and will not even try to breed with eachother, even in captivity. A Penguin will not try to breed with an emu.

Yeah, like he cares enough to use Google, he just watched Napolean Dynamite.

at 30 Apr 2006: 01:34

holy sh*t you people are talking about actually having sex with animals what the hell is wrong with you. don't get me wrong i'm a part of the fury fandom but this is sick on so many levels. non of you people own pets do you? Cause if you do then i feel sorry for them. Anthroporphic characters are just factional characters you know like werewolf’s but dog's or other animals are real breathing (and lets face it) diseased things. another thing when a dog is humping your leg its not thinking "ooooh baby i love you" its in heat and can't think clearly it just want’s to hump. i don't believe in god but i do believe that every thing is the way it is for a resign, which is why our
anatomy is different then that of an animals, because we were never meant to have sex with them

Sakura K. at 30 Apr 2006: 01:44

The problem is that while zoophiles exist among fur art fans/furries in general, not all of us ARE zoophiles.  While I do not object to the personal preferences of others, I do believe that it reflects poorly on the community as a whole for beastiality to be presented on one of the main art resources in the furry community.

Those who do not understand and already hate furries will look for any excuse to hate us more, and we really must be on our best behavior.  We are better than the face that we have been given by CSI, MTV, and the anti-furs on 4chan.  I know too many people within the fandom who've been shunned by mundies for the actions of others and labeled with terms like "furvert" (not in a joking way) and "dogfucker".

My point is that of decorum.  We should behave civilly towards one another, and present a good, friendly face that won't scare off newbies to the furry fandom, and hardcore bestiality is something that would scare a lot of newbs off.  Remember that Fchan is an ART forum.  This is about art.

140Report (sage)
at 30 Apr 2006: 02:48

"But two animals of different Genuses(genii?) cannot and will not even try to breed with eachother, even in captivity."

Wrong.  Do some research before you make false assertions based on only your own unschooled opinions.  It's not that hard, libraries are a good start.  I'll even give you a hint:  Desmond Morris.  It'll be under anthropology or sociology most likely. 

141Report (sage)
at 30 Apr 2006: 02:54


That was kind of sort of my point when I started this thread: this place is about furry art, not bestiality art.

As for people hating furries, I don't think they really do. I think they're just looking for a laugh, and over here are a bunch of grown-ups having fantasies about cartoon characters (and similar beings) who are very easy to stir up. Having blatant bestiality (and pedophilia, for that matter) among us only gives them a bigger target.

But it's all moot. The mods gave me an explanation and I was done with it. All the rest of these 150 threads? Well, I'm glad everyone is so passionate about this subject, but we're currently beating a dead horse, and involving more than one website in the process...

My take on bestiality? It exists. That's all there is to it. Some people bring up legal issues, some people bring up morality issues, some people bring up disease issues, and some people bring up the "gross out" factor. I'm sure with a bit of thought, the bottom line, at least for me, is bestiality isn't natural, but it's been happening in strong or weak cycles throughout all of human history (and in some cases accepted by the general public). Does this mean it's wrong (illegal)? I don't know. Does this mean it's bad (immoral)? I don't know. None of the arguments I've seen in this entire thread have leaned me in either direction, nor given me enough information to make my own decision (and I'll be damned if I let someone else choose for me).

So there you have my take on this whole conversation.

at 30 Apr 2006: 03:13


Every aspect of my post was relevant. Just because you cannot defend against some points does not warrant dismissing them entirely.

You completely overlooked the fact that I said -MOST- animals have sex purely for reproductive purposes. I acknowledge there are some higher species (dolphins, humans, chimps, Bonobo...all species which are considered the smartest and most social) which have sex recreationally to strengthen their bonds within the group, hence, you know, why I didn't say -ALL-.

This really boils down to dogs and horses, the two most frequently used species when it comes to beastiality.

Dolphins, yes, they have sex outside of their breeding season to strengthen bonds within the pod, but how many people are actually having sex with a dolphin? It's dangerous for both parties. The person receiving from a male dolphin can easily be killed by the thrusting force. A person could struggle during the act, causing the dolphin difficulities in breathing, ect. So while dolphins may engage in non-reproductive sex, that's irrelevant, because of the reasons I mentioned.

Horses do NOT have sex outside of their breeding cycle. Mares dictate when there is sex. They allow sex when they are fertile, and disallow it when they are not. Mares, generally, are pregnant most of the time, and were they to engage in casual sex the foal would be aborted due to the length of the stallion's genitalia. Male horses do NOT have sex with each other...male horses are HIGHLY territorial and a lead stallion only tolerates his male offspring in his territory, and even then until they reach sexual maturity. As I mentioned in my previous post, just because a mare or stallion does not move away when you insert something into their genitalia does NOT mean they are OK with what you are doing. They have been trained to have objects inserted into their orifices for medical purposes (health checks), and having sex with a horse is taking advantage of such.

Rodents... Rodents do NOT have sex outside of breeding purposes. How do I know? I've raised just about every domestic rodent there is. Rodents have very fast breeding cycles. A female rodent may have sex the next day, or even just minutes after giving birth. That's the nature of the rodent breeding cycle. The female only allows sex while she is capable of producing babies. This applies to not only lagamorphs, but rodents as well. Male rodents do NOT have sex with each other. Just like with wolf packs, most rodents (with the exception of Syrian Hamsters) have a hiearchy among the males. Mounting is a display of dominance that even occurs among the females as well. It is not indicative of sex. Also, do I really need to argue how sex with a RODENT is dangerous and potentially harmful to the animal?

Primates are one of the higher species whereupon some sex does take place on a casual level similar to humans. Most PRIMATES, however, are small and having sex with them is potentially harmful because of that. Also, unless you're living with that primate for the rest of its life, it's all irrelevant, as primates only have sex with those in their close-knit family group or for reproductive purposes...they don't just go have sex with whatever other primate wanders through their territory. So if you want to argue that primates do it, therefore it's OK, you're still advantage of the primate's use of sex to strengthen family bonds, and so unless you're acting as it's family (ie: with it 24/7, 365 days for the course of its life), you're simply tricking the animal into a false sense of security and familiarity to take advantage of its means of family bonding.

Apes are less likely to engage in casual sex, but they do so for the same reasons as most primates, and so the same logic applies.

Elephants do NOT have sex outside of their breeding season. Male elephants undergo a surge of hormones during the breeding season that increases the testosterone in their body, therefore increasing sex drive. This is when the female elephants are receptive to breeding in order to reproduce. Male elephants do not have sex with one another and are, in fact, highly territorial.

In regards to male animals, they have sex with the understand that there are offspring resulting from it, as I've already stated. Female animals have sex for the same reason, except in certain cases (such as some primates (the Bonobo) are concerned).

Relying on captive animals to base assumptions is incorrect. Captive animals do many things that their wild counterparts do not do, due to boredom or other factors. Captive animals are not a reliable means of basing species behavior off of.

Also, yes, sometimes animals do have sex with the same gender within the species. This does NOT occur often and usually occurs between younger animals who are in their first breeding season and confused by the rush of testosterone in their bodies (which increases the sex drive, making them more competitive). I've not seen any concrete PROOF that male animals actually engage in the entire act of sex (ejaculating into another's anus)...the only things I have seen have been pictures of a male mounting another male, which, again, is a common display of dominance, whether there's an erection involved or not.

You're trying to defend having sex with an animal as natural, and part of their nature, when that is certainly not the case. With the exception of dolphins, humans, some apes, and the Bonobo primates, 'lesser' animals have sex for reproductive purposes and nothing more, and having sex with an animal is taking advantage of that biological drive, whichever way you decide to sweeten it up. Taking advantage of anything or anything is wrong, no matter how you look at it.

FYI, any of the facts I've presented are readily available for research. I would recommend watching the Discovery channel, for one, as well as reading some medical journals (especially regarding rodents and lagamorphs).

I was not able to find any evidence of horses, dogs, rodents, ect. having sex for recreational purposes. Nor was I able to find, aside from a few photos which showed mounting, documentation of male animals having anal sex with one another whereupon there was -actual sex- and not just mounting. Feel free to point me to the place where you found your information regarding such. I would especially love to read about horses, dogs, and rodents having recreational sex among themselves and outside their breeding season.

HooRU at 30 Apr 2006: 03:26

Why can't you admit your obvious attraction to animals? You'll sit there and "paw off" to pictures of half-human and half-animal nonexistent creatures, but you deny entirely your attraction to the characteristics that make up a furry. If it didn't have that "cats" tail or immense "horse" penis you wouldn't be as attracted to it.

You dress up as "skunks" and "foxes" with fluffy tails and long faces. Are these common HUMAN features?

The fact is: Beastiality is illegal, but that doesn't stop you from fantasizing about having sex with something that closely resembles an animal. Then, you have this huge (and entirely POINTLESS) debate about whether its morally wrong to have sex with an animal.

To me this looks like some sorry attempt to somehow justify your profane attraction to animals. You are NOT a fucking lizard. You are NOT a friggin fox. Maybe you got it into your head that if you pretend enough you'll become one and you can have all the sex you want with them, and then it wont contradict your perception of right and wrong.

at 30 Apr 2006: 03:28

Animals do not mate for pleasure like humans do(with the exception of dolphins) so if you were to have sex with a dog and they don't resist it's only because it's instinct.

You may love your dog to the ends of the earth but there is no way for it to feel the same way as you do because they don't perceive the world the same way we do. They don't know that someday they will die or that hunk of metal they chase down the street isn't alive.

All of you know this. That is why you strive to break through this barrier that divides the human and animal world. By making something that is half-human and half-animal you have successfully developed something that is able to voice it's opinion yet still has the features of the animal which you find attractive.

You wouldn't dream about fucking a real skunk but suddenly that "Skunkette" is looking mighty fine. Stop trying to vindicate your perversion by denying what is too obvious not to see and LET THIS THREAD DIE with whatever is left of your humanity.

at 30 Apr 2006: 03:37


You could quit generalizing. That would be great.

Not everyone who enjoys furry art is a crazy fursuiter who's 'pawing off' to pictures, or wants to have sex with animals. I'm quite happy having sex with my HUMAN partner, kthx.

Also, some furries are drawn more 'human' than animal. Adding 'cat' ears to a human does not make them a closet furry with beastiality tendencies. More often than not, it's the -behavior- of the animal that is appealing (aggressiveness, ect.), and not the physical aspects (ears, tail, fur, ect.).

Personally, I am not sexually attracted to animals IRL, and additionally, am not attracted to anthros IRL. They look good on paper (or on the computer screen), but otherwise the appeal goes no further. And I know many more 'furs' who feel this way.

Just because someone likes something on a fantasy level (Hey, I like medieval stories with sword fighting and zombies...doesn't mean I want to go live in that era), doesn't mean they've a desire to play out the fantasy IRL.

146Report (sage)
Fan at 30 Apr 2006: 03:41

The 7 Rules of the Farm
1. Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
2. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
3. No animal shall wear clothes.
4. No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets.
5. No animal shall drink alcohol in excess.
6. No animal shall kill any other animal without cause.
7. All animals are equal.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Stop pretending your animals and then outright deny that you'd fuck them if given the chance.

"I just jerk off to pictures of animals having sex. That doesn't mean 'I' want to have sex with them or condone it."

Maybe you're just jealous because all these people are doing it but aren't because you don't have the guts or can't bear the fact that it might be true.

Totally agree to LET THIS THREAD DIE!

147Report (sage)
at 30 Apr 2006: 03:56


This is from a book, Orwell's "Animal Farm" if I'm not mistaken. It sounds like you could benefit from giving it a read.

Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 30 Apr 2006: 04:36

Holy Crap!  I didn't think anyone would continue this, let alone for so long.  I'll have some reading to do when I get back from work.  Excellent. ^_^

Xenofur at 30 Apr 2006: 04:44

Indeed it is. Nadia put that there as a sort of joke. :)

DragonFlame at 30 Apr 2006: 07:04

This thread is growing very quick.

First off no one is trying to twist anyone’s words around on purpose. They have an opinion and that is what the truly believe. Saying that they are just making excuses up is just ignorant of others feelings and beliefs and you should stop now before this becomes nasty.

Let me recap what each side thinks.

People Against Bestiality.
-Its immoral because an animal can’t give consent.
-Its illegal in most places in the world.

People For Bestiality.
-Its moral because an animal can give consent.
-Its legal in some parts of the world.

Does anyone have a problem with these stupid arguments that are going nowhere?

The legal matter is final, if it legal then go ahead if not don’t.
Regarding the Morality.
I look at it this way Pro-Bestiality groups seems to think that Animals are equal to humans and are smart intelligent creatures that are capable of making their own decisions and is able to communicate consent in their own way.
Anti-Bestiality groups seem to think that animals are a lower life form than humans and that they are stupid and can not make any decision on their own let alone give consent.

I think instead of arguing about this maybe we should try to figure out if an animal is smart enough to understand what Consent is. I believe that some animals are smart enough to make this decision.
So far no one has really answered this but some have come close.

There is only one argument that has made any sense to me and that is that having sex to not reproduce is unnatural. I agree with this but remember that this apply’s to Sex with Condoms and other Protection devices and also Homosexuals and Lesbians.

For those that are becoming uncivil get lost this is a friendly discussion, we don’t care to hear your prejudiced opinions and you bring the worst out in everyone.

xAmthystMystx at 30 Apr 2006: 07:45

Alright guys, listen up. It's as simple as this-if you don't like it, **DONT LOOK AT IT*** It's not an argument of if it's right or wrong.

(This next sentence may make me seem a tad raciest, or offend some, I mean in no way shape or form offence.)

Back in the south, MANY slave owners thought it was right to own slaves. They justified it.

Doesn't make it right. People say things are wrong or right and justify them simply through their own means. I am not pro slavery to anything, but I am pro beast.

So, really, morality is equivilant to mentallity. If you think its right, it's right. If you don't like it, don't look and keep your own views. THIS IS A FURRY SITE. IT INVOLVES ANIMALS! What makes anthropomorphic different than beast? Its still the same concept, only one has a more humanish appearence.

Sorry for rambling, I'll go now. ^^;;

at 30 Apr 2006: 08:44

There is only one argument that has made any sense to me and that is that having sex to not reproduce is unnatural. I agree with this but remember that this apply’s to Sex with Condoms and other Protection devices and also Homosexuals and Lesbians.

1)  Ok, then explain why 100% of all animals masturbate.  Masturbation is sex without procreation.

2)  Explain why dolphins have casual sex?  Casual sex = sex without the intent of procreation. 

If it was unnatural, neither of these cases would exist.

Your argument is invalid.

at 30 Apr 2006: 08:51


What are you trying to say? Are you saying people shouold have ignored slavery? Or are you saying the bestialists need to move to the south? I'm so confused!

SFlanagan at 30 Apr 2006: 09:43

I have just one thing to say:
 Fchan is a site for yiffy, right?
 This post will be number 154 - Why is it that bestiality/zoophilia whatever is so important to you people?
In my opinion it has ABSOLUTLY nothing to do with yiffy, so it has no relavence to Fchan.
The moderators have deemed it and other stuff (suicide? Jesus, get some therapy) acceptable so arguing about it for over 150 posts is pointless because if they wont ban it now and they never will so GET OVER IT!

PS. For clarification I don't agree with it at all.
    And what's with people writing a two-post argument and not      
    even bothering to give their name/ pseudonem?
    Dont forget to check out my art on the Equine Girls thread,
    rock on Fchan!

at 30 Apr 2006: 10:06

>>154 "Yiffy?" Do you mean "furry porn?"

Yggdrasil at 30 Apr 2006: 10:47

http://picpop.com/gallery/albums/userpics/FNPICS_funny/thumb_elrhino.jpg  40 seconds in google.
I agree completely.  While I don't practice bestiality, noone yet has explained how it hurts anyone.
Even if consent was the issue, noone asks an animal if they consent to:
Being held in captivity.
Being fed unnatural foods.
Being killed for their meat/skin.
Being dressed up for fashion shows.
Having their genitalia removed.
Being restrained by a choke collar, shock device, or noisemaker.
Being forced to breed and produce offspring to sell.
Having their yound taken and sold prematurely.
Having products and drugs tested on them.
Hauling people around on wagons.
Hauling people around on sleds.
Being made to fight for pleasure/profit.
Etc, etc, etc.

So frankly, if someone argues it's wrong because they can't consent, they have no right to protest unless they are a perfect vegan, wear and use no animal products, use nothing created via animal testing, and live someplace that allows any of the above and doesn't take an active stance against it.
Only someone who doesn't take advantage of animals could have the right to comdemn another for the same.

Morality is funny that way.

at 30 Apr 2006: 11:08

good read - go into it with an open mind.

Anonymous#ns1dgrrSJ. at 30 Apr 2006: 17:09


Okay, I fully agree that animals are treated in an cruel manner, but in all seriousness, we aren't talking about having sex with animals instead of killing them, we're talking about having sex with them as WELL as killing them, and so forth.  Just because they have the collective plagues of humanity's heartlessness to contend with doesn't mean adding one more is justified by not being as bad as some of them.  That's like saying it's okay to steal because it isn't murder.  Well... sure, murder is worse, but that hardly makes stealing right.  Also, by this reasoning, I have no right to protest is I see someone lighting a bag of puppies on fire because I drive a car which harms the environment, and thus, animals.  Even if that makes sense on a purely mechanical level, you;ll have to forgive me for dropping the idea as utterly impractical.

Oh the original idea of bestiality art has been resolved.  This is a tangent. ^_^

Why do people keep saying "your argument is invalid"?  Saying that doesn't make it true.  You can say anything you want and dismiss everything people say about it, but this doesn't make your argument stronger.  If I were standing on train tracks and you said "Move you stupid fuckwit!" I could respond by saying "You've lowered yourself to insults, thus you show your lack of intelligence, thus your words are invalid."  And then I'd get hit by a train.  Honestly, any time you say "Your words (or whatever) are invalid", that invariably applies to you as well unless you start involving provable scientific laws (which are few and number and tend not to define matters of debate).  This is supposed to be a discussion, so exploring different opinions IS the point... isn't it?

I mean, sheesh, go with the obvious spirit of the post anyway, not the syntax.  That would be like me saying: "You said that 100% of animals masturbate.  Pufferfish do not masturbate, thus 100% of animals do not maturbate, thus, the rest of your argument is invalid."  You worded this one point in a manner that, while not technically correct, is perfectly understandable.  It occurs outside of humans (representing unnatural), which means that it's natural.  Awesome.  You've defeated that point... but there are counter points to your position, and you act like you've already won.  Now, you have a right to do that and all, but it's kind of annoying, and makes it really difficult to make a point since the whole thing needs to be practically started over each time.


I understand this point, and I do see animals as being practically enslaved or worse.  Rape is just one of many problems I see happening to animals, and those who disagree with me are calling it love, or natural.  Well, the legality, one way or another, doesn't impact the morality of the issue.  The frighteningly liberal laws of thailand, or any nation's archaic (and current) laws show that.  My problem is that I see people having sex with animals, then calling it "fine and good".  Well, they aren't consenting in a manner that is recognized in court, so a new definition of consent would need to be applied to animals to make it 'not rape'.  Some are arguing that instictive responses are sufficient, where as I argue that it isn't.  Whatever the case, I hope I don't need to explain why making your own arbitrary definitions in order to justify something is frightening... but I can, though I doubt people would read it.

As for "if you don't like it, don't look"... I assume you're talking about the art?  Well, the morality of that wasn't what I was getting at anyway.  My philosophy on that matter is: If it isn't real, it isn't hurting anyone.  I don't like it when the art becomes reality though, and in most cases, people seem unanimous on that matter.  Looking at a picture of someone being raped and killed may say things about you, but you haven't raped and murdered just by looking at the picture.  The same applies to pictures of bestiality... but people are saying it's fine to engage in these activities in real life in this case; hense, the big long discussion on the matter.

Come on man, you're better than this.  Saying an animal isn't capable of consent isn't saying that it's a lower lifeform that is stupid.  Some may say that, but some of us are merely pointing out that animals lack that particular capacity.  I wouldn't say that children are lesser people who are stupid, but when a child decides they want to eat nothing but pudding, I, as the knowing adult, will intervene on behalf of the child.  If I ask a scientist a question, sure, he knows more than me, but that doesn't make me stupid and lowly, and if he lies to me and gives me a bogus answer "just for kicks", sure, I wouldn't know better, and would probably never be hurt for it in any way, but he's still a jerk for taking advantage of my trust like that.

It's all a matter of relative position.  I'm not saying that bestiality is unnatural, I'm saying it's selfish, and done utterly without regard for the animal's benefit, which, as far as I can tell, is being dictated by the owner of the animal, either because it makes them happy to believe that, or because they're not an evil person as such, and don't want to abuse an animal, yet they don't want to not have sex with the animal, hence, the excuse.  Sex IS natural... so is theft.  Indulging yourself without regard for others is a natural urge, but it's often wrong to give into that.  This may be clear cases, like hitting people for fun or stealing.  Then there are others, like saying mean things about people behind their backs.  Sure, they never find out, never know, and are never "hurt", but that doen't make you morally sound for doing it.  It's still a rotten thing to do.

Fringe cases are troubling to me.  I don't know enough about dolphins to know if all the things people say about them are true.  I've heard claims one way and another, but I will admit that if some of the more amazing stories are true, then yes, dolphins can consent, and it becomes a different argument.  Chimps and gorillas... maybe they can too, I don't know.  Again, I've seen reputable sources from both sides makes claims that seem feasible, though I would like to believe that it's true.  Still, this doesn't mean that dogs, horses, and sheep consent.  Humans aren't rational because we're humans, we're rational because we're rational (capable).  Maybe humans stand alone in this, or maybe we have a few others with the same capacity to share the planet with... heck, it's possible that some of them may be "superior" to us in terms of what they could amount to given the opportunity... but everything isn't rational.  There are living things that don't think at all, and an enormous quantity of those who fall inbetween.

I don't think dogs or goats are far enough along to form the kind of complicated thoughts required to love and consent as we humans understand it, so any sexual activities done to them are done without concent, just like the rest of the stuff that we do to animals.

There's all kinds of animals that can interbreed, with or without human interference.  Don't read too much into the purely reactive responses.  It's like when people were trying to decide if the world was round or not.  Some argued one side, some argued the other, and then there was a large amount of people who just said what was popular, and of course, those who said something because they were "rebels", and did just the opposite.

Still, you can expand his point and say that animals will often breed in ways that are unhealthy for them in the long run (with or without human consent).  Inbreeding being the biggest example that comes to mind.  Just because it happens and is natural doesn't mean it's good or bad... it just means it happens.

No, if you forbid a topic of conversation, it just gets pushed further underground, and people will just do it anyway because they think they're right.  Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong, but how will either side know if neither side will listen?

Though I got to admit it is nice being on the side with the most physical clout for a change.  Not very enlightened of me, or mature... but it does mean that if nothing is resolved and things stay the same it will favor me... on this matter at least. ^_^;;

159Report (sage)
at 30 Apr 2006: 19:22

>>158  "It's all a matter of relative position.  I'm not saying that bestiality is unnatural, I'm saying it's selfish, and done utterly without regard for the animal's benefit, which, as far as I can tell, is being dictated by the owner of the animal, either because it makes them happy to believe that, or because they're not an evil person as such, and don't want to abuse an animal, yet they don't want to not have sex with the animal, hence, the excuse. "

Well, if it's just a matter of selfishness, then what's the problem?  Selfishness is the essential state of humankind, and service to the self/ego is a more basic motivation than Freud's idea of sex and aggression.  Even doing 'nice' things is typically motivated by self-serving gratification, and altruism is widely considered a mythical beast. 

In cases where the animal seems to enjoy it, the human obviously enjoys it, and neither party is harmed significantly against their will, what's the issue?  The human is selfish?  Yeah, but he could hire a whore, be just as selfish. 

Is the issue that the person is deluding themselves?  People do that all the time too, especially when it comes to how they think about themselves and their lives.  The folks who see themselves as they actually are usually aren't very happy, and spend a lot of time in therapy. The Truth hurts, and self-delusion is a tool of self-preservation in a lot of cases. 

So if some guy is boinking his sheep, and she's unharmed and/or indifferent, and he's convinced himself she likes it, what the worst thing going on?  Social taboos aside, he's just a regular, selfish, self-deluded member of the fucked up dominant species on the planet who happens to like boinking his sheep. 

Hardly worth a lot of hate and loathing and a bunch of expensive legal proceedings concluding in a hefty jail term.  Sure, he's not necessarily a 'good' guy (though opinions would differ on that, too, I assume) but he's not exactly evil incarnate either. 

Personally, I'd be happy with the world leaving folks like that a lone, and saving the hate and venom and law-book throwing for folks that show obvious disregard for the safety and comfort and health of the animals they get involved with.  While I can't agree that every girl that spreads her legs for Fido is commiting rape, I do agree that raping any animal *is* well within the abilities of any human, kicking, biting and clawing or not.    As a species we can very well take what we want by force, and I'm sure a lot of folks likely do, and then convince themselves otherwise. 

I'd be happy to see folks who rape animals get whatever punishment folks can manage, whether it's ostracization, fines, jail time, whatever.  But I can also entertain the possibility that some folks who have sex with animals aren't committing rape, and don't deserve punishment of any sort, because they're not 'bad' people. 

So I guess I'm just not comfortable going with an all-or-nothing position on the matter, when all evidence seems to me to say it's not that clear cut.  As you said, it's relative, not absolute - It's not *always* wrong, and it's not *always* right, either. 

And I think arguing, or trying to convince someone, that it is a black-and-white issue of absolutes is foolish.  Of course, who am I to talk about foolish, after writing almost 500 words about 'the moral connotations of human-animal sexual contact' on the internet.  On Fchan, no less...  ;)

at 30 Apr 2006: 19:49

Quick query. Why is it okay for a horny animal to hump another horny animal of the same species? Aren't we animals too? What gives? You or your intended partner have to be pretty darn slothful and dirty to be passing diseases around anyway, the zoos I know are very respectable about it, cleaning them and their partner thoroughly before any hankypanky.

1003Add Reply This thread is threadstopped. You can't reply anymore.

Powered by: Shiichan Version 3956
The contents of this page are asserted to be in the public domain by the posters.
The administrators claim no responsibility for thread content.